HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED VREDENDAL INCA SOLAR ENERGY FACILITY, VREDENDAL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, WESTERN CAPE (Assessment conducted under Section 38 (8) of the National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 of 1999) as part of an EIA) Prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd PO Box 148 Sunninghill, 2157 Phone (011) 2346621 Fax (086) 684 0547 03 November 2011 Prepared by Jayson Orton ACO Associates 8 Jacobs Ladder St James Cape Town 7945 Phone (021) 650 2357 Fax (021) 650 2352 Email [email protected] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACO Associates was requested by Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed Vredendal Inca Solar Energy Facility on the Remainder of Farm Bakleiplaas 277 in the Vredendal Magisterial District. The site is some 60 ha in extent and a power line of less than 2 km would be required to link the proposed on site substation to the nearby Juno Substation. The study includes specialist input from palaeontological and visual specialists. The site has low undulating topography and is covered by low vegetation dominated by spiny grass. Heuweltjies occur in places. Palaeontological heritage is known to occur in the region and many fossils of limited importance may be present within the uppermost sandy deposits of the area. More important fossils occur deeper down. Archaeological remains occur frequently in the local landscape but are generally in poor context and of low significance. Some sites of higher significance occur along rivers and in rock shelters in the region. The area is characterised by two dominant features, the wide open spaces of the Namaqualand plains and the agricultural landscape along the Olifants River valley. The palaeontological assessment finds that excavation on the site are unlikely to penetrate deep enough to impact upon the more significant material but that fossils may nonetheless be impacted within the surface sands. These are generally of low significance. A number of archaeological occurrences were documented on the site, some of which are significant enough to merit limited mitigation measures to enhance our understanding of them. These latter are associated with heuweltjies and accorded medium significance which reduces to low with mitigation. Isolated artefacts of very low significance occur throughout the site. Built structures and visible graves are absent from the site. Visual impacts are considered medium both before and after mitigation but will be reduced to some degree through implementation of mitigation measures. It is concluded that the project may proceed. The site location is somewhat secluded from the general region by virtue of the local topography which is a significant positive factor, particularly from a visual perspective. Archaeological material will be easily mitigated. It is recommended that the project be allowed to proceed subject to the following: • Paleontological monitoring and reporting should occur; • Archaeological mitigation as described in the report must be carried out; • If any unmarked burials are located during excavations then these should be reported immediately and an archaeologist contracted to remove the remains; and • Visual mitigation measures as described in the visual study must be implemented. Declaration: Mr Jayson Orton is an independent specialist consultant who is in no way connected with the proponent, other than in the delivery of consulting services. He has an MA in Archaeology and 11 years of working experience in heritage throughout the western half of South Africa, including several wind energy facility projects. He is accredited with the Association of Professional Archaeologists of Southern Africa (Membership No. 233) as follows: • Principal Investigator: Shell Middens and Stone Age archaeology • Field Director: Colonial period, Grave relocation, Rock art. He has also engaged in several archaeological research projects along the west coast of South Africa. 2 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 4 2. HERITAGE LEGISLATION ...................................................................................................................... 4 3. METHODS .................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1. Limitations and assumptions ......................................................................................................... 5 4. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................... 5 5. HERITAGE CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................... 5 6. Findings ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 6.1. Palaeontology .................................................................................................................................... 7 6.2. Archaeology ....................................................................................................................................... 7 6.3. Built environment ........................................................................................................................... 13 6.4. Graves .............................................................................................................................................. 13 6.5. Cultural landscapes and sense of place .................................................................................... 13 6.6. Visual impacts and scenic routes ................................................................................................ 13 7. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ................................................................................................................. 16 7.1. Palaeontology .................................................................................................................................. 16 7.2. Archaeology ..................................................................................................................................... 16 7.3. Built environment ........................................................................................................................... 17 7.4. Graves .............................................................................................................................................. 17 7.5. Cultural landscapes and sense of place .................................................................................... 17 7.6. Visual impacts and scenic routes ................................................................................................ 17 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 19 9. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 19 3 1. INTRODUCTION ACO Associates was requested by Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed Vredendal Inca Solar Energy Facility on the Remainder of Farm Bakleiplaas 277 in the Vredendal Magisterial District. The site is located midway between Vredendal and Lutzville, on the northern side of the Olifants River (Figure 1). The proponent wishes to establish a solar energy facility that will cover an area of approximately 60 ha and have a small substation alongside it. A power line of between about 1.25 and 2.0 km would link into the existing Juno substation located to the southwest. Figure 1: Map showing the location of the proposed solar energy facility (red polygon) and the nearby Juno Substation (yellow dot). (Mapsheet 3118CB sourced from Chief Directorate Surveys and Mapping). A Notification of Intent to Develop (NID) was submitted to Heritage Western Cape (HWC) and they in turn requested a Heritage Impact Assessment that included specialist palaeontological, archaeological and visual studies. While the archaeological aspect is captured wholly within the present report, the other two specialist studies were conducted by John Almond (2011) and Lourens Du Plessis (2011) respectively and their findings and recommendations have been integrated into this report. Their reports are, nonetheless, appended in full. 2. HERITAGE LEGISLATION The National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) No. 25 of 1999 protects a variety of heritage resources including palaeontological, prehistoric and historical material (including ruins) more than 100 years old (Section 35), human remains (Section 36) and non-ruined structures older than 60 years (Section 34). Landscapes with cultural significance are also protected under the definition of the National Estate (Section 3 (3.2d)). 4 The project is being conducted under the auspices of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). As such, final decision making would rest with the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) with Heritage Western Cape being required to provide comment. 3. METHODS The study area was surveyed on foot on the 12 th and 14 th of October 2011 with the landscape and all heritage occurrences recorded photographically. The positions of sites were taken by means of a hand-held GPS receiver on the WGS datum and walk paths were also created via GPS. The